Judge decides youth CAN be named

A judge has decided the youth who attempted to murder a woman he smashed on the head with a slab and raped in Leicester’s Victoria Park can be named.

Because of the court order, we were unable to reveal during the trial that Charlie Pearce had been out celebrating his 17th birthday on the night of the attempted murder and double rape.

He had formerly been living at his mother’s house in Leicester, but was staying at his father’s home in West Avenue, Clarendon Park, which is close to Victoria Park, at the time of the attack.

The defendant, wearing a suit, shirt and tie showed no reaction as the guilty verdict was announced.

The victim, who attended the trial, looked tearful and was comforted by a rape support worker, who has been beside her throughout.

High Court Judge Mr Justice Haddon Cave told the defendant: “I am going to adjourn sentencing on you in order to obtain reports.”

12:32

Media asks for youth to be named

The media has made an application asking the judge in the case to lift the reporting restriction which prevents the youth being named publicly. The judge has taken a few minutes away from the bench to consider the media’s request.

12:20KEY EVENT

Verdict

The defendant has been found GUILTY of attempting to murder a woman he raped and bludgeoned with a paving slab in Leicester’s Victoria Park.

12:14

Verdict imminent

THURSDAY DECEMBER 8

The Mercury understands the jury has reached a verdict in this case.

It has been asked to decide whether the defendant, who cannot be named because of his age, is guilty or not guilty of attempted murder.

15:28

'Be calm and dispassionate'

Mr Justice Haddon-Cave told the jury, of eight women and four men, that they should use their common sense and be “calm and dispassionate”, with “12 cool heads”, when considering the verdict.

He told them: “It’s for you to weigh up the evidence and conclude on the facts.”

He said the jurors could take as long as they wanted in reaching their verdict.

He added: “There will be no more evidence in the case.

“You should try to reach a unanimous verdict; that of all 12 of you.”

The jury has now retired to consider the verdict.

We are continuing to cover this case live, and will bring you any updates as they happen.

15:22

'Defendant gave 'no comment' answers'

The police asked the Leicester Mercury to put up CCTV footage the next day, which led to the defendant’s family calling the police, the judge has reminded the jury.

The defendant’s DNA matched intimate samples taken from the victim, with a billion-to-one likelihood of it being anyone other than the defendant.

The defendant was arrested and charged.

He answered “no comment” in his police interviews, apart from saying, in the second interview, that he was the man in the park on the CCTV footage.

He claimed he did not know why he had been arrested and was not responsible.

The judge is summarising the prosecution and defence cases.

15:19

'Held her hand, told her she was safe'

The judge said that an ambulance woman who arrived at the scene had told the jury: “I was completely and utterly shocked.

“We are trained, but I’ve never come across anything like that before.

“She was lying there with blood everywhere.”

She had suffered head injuries.

The ambulance woman said: “I checked her over.

“I held her hand and told her she was safe.”

The judge has now moved on to the medical evidence with descriptions of the victim’s skull fracture extending from the right side under the back of the skull and on to the left side.

She also had damage to the left side of her forehead and sustained bleeding on the brain.

She was taken from Leicester Royal Infirmary to Nottingham’s Queen’s Medical Centre, where she was in an induced coma for two weeks.

Recapping on what Professor Guy Rutty, a home office pathologist, told the jury, the judge said the woman’s injuries were described as “life-threatening”, and that the upper end of “severe scale of force” had been used, and a weapon, consistent with a paving slab, had been used.

15:10

'I checked she was alive'

Mr Justice Haddon-Cave is reminding the jury about the facts of the case.

He is recounting evidence from three teenage males who allegedly witnessed part of the attack in Victoria Park.

They described hearing screams and seeing a man hitting a woman, who was on the ground.

She was then dragged into bushes and they called the police at 11.38pm.

Officers attended – after the witnesses left the scene - and could not locate the woman, who was lying injured in undergrowth and was out of sight.

A student cyclist crossing the park almost an hour later rode over some glass and stopped to check for a puncture.

She saw blood on the path and a hair clip before hearing “rustling” nearby.

The judge said she was “brave enough and had the fortitude” to investigate, and discovered the injured woman whose “face was covered in blood.”

She called for an ambulance at about 12.30am.

The student’s evidence was: “At first I didn’t realise it was a person.”

The woman was lying on her back and partially dressed.

She added: “I checked she was alive.

“She was breathing, steady and deeply, like someone sleeping.”

14:52

'Intention to kill does not have to be planned'

High Court Judge Mr Justice Haddon-Cave has begun his summing-up to the jury.

He said the jurors may want to consider why the defendant was carrying “such a heavy object” and what sort of damage it could cause if used as a weapon.

The judge gave the jurors directions about their decision making with a “route to verdict”.

He said: “Are you sure that when the defendant physically attacked the victim, he did so with the intention of killing her?

“If the answer is yes, then he is guilty of attempted murder.

“If the answer is no, then he is not guilty.”

The judge added: “The intention to kill does not have to be planned or pre-meditated, it can or may arise on the spur of the moment.”

The jury is due to retire to consider the verdict at the end of the judge’s summing up.

14:40

'Doubtful in the extreme'

Defence counsel added: “When he ran along the boundary of the park and into the park carrying that slab, he was intent on violence, sexual violence.

“You cannot safely infer he was intent on death or murder.”

Mr Bradley said: “I suggest it was clearly brutal and gratuitous, and he accepts that, that’s why he pleaded guilty.”

He said his client’s behaviour had been “appalling and utterly criminal”, but the suggestion he intended to kill was “doubtful in the extreme”.

He said the defendant had not given evidence, adding: “What could he say in his defence, beyond ‘I didn’t intend to kill her’.”

The defence speech has now finished.

The judge, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave, will now sum up the case for the jury. The jury will be sent to consider its verdict at some point after that.

14:25

'Feelings must not colour your judgement', jury told

The barrister said: “He did not intent to kill her.

“The serious assault he committed, though gratuitous, wasn’t intended to bring an end to her life. Rather, it was a means to an end, to render her unconscious so he could rape her.

“I’ve referred to this case as being the stuff of nightmares.

“The human condition is as such that when we see, or hear, of an the offence like this our instincts take us to feelings of disgust and enmity, as well as sympathy for the victim.

“Those feelings mustn’t cloud your judgement.”

He said “one of the many terrible aspects of this case” was the evidence of internet searches “in the build-up” to the attack.

He described the defendant having searched for topics involving gang rape and aggressive rape of a helpless girl.

Mr Bradley added: “Put aside feelings of revulsion or disgust.

“You may agree, the subject matter was sex – unlawful violent sex. In other words, rape.

“The person conducting those searches was interested in ‘controlling’ and was fixated in that distorted way.

“His actions on the park precisely reflect the nature of the seriousness: rape, aggressive, helpless.

“His phone was examined after his arrest, enabling the police to establish exactly what interested him.”

The barrister said there was “no evidence” of any searches relating to death.

He added: “There’s nothing relating to necrophilia or snuff movies of that appalling type where the darkest subject of death is intertwined with sex.”

14:12

'Did he intend to kill her - no'

He said the defendant might have had cannabis “now and again”, but apart from that he had been in no trouble with the police.

The defence counsel reminded the jury that the defendant has already pleaded guilty to “precisely what he had done”, causing grievous bodily harm with intent, twice raping her and stealing her handbag.

Mr Bradley said: “On entering those pleas he knew that at the end of these proceedings he will face the consequence of his actions.

“He will receive the punishment he deserves.”

Mr Bradley said the single question or issue in the case was, when the defendant assaulted the woman, “did he intend to kill her?”.

He urged the jurors to use their heads and not their hearts when considering the evidence, with a “dispassionate analysis” of the facts – and said the answer “has to be no”.

14:02

'Vulnerable woman, gratuitously attacked'

Defence barrister Phillip Bradley QC is now giving his closing address to the jury.

He said: “It’s clear from the evidence you’ve heard in this case that the darkest of narratives has been described.

“A lone, vulnerable woman gratuitously attacked and beaten in a public park at night.

“What, you might ask, could be worse than that?

“And then the consequences; the devastation that these events must have brought to the victim and her family.”

Mr Bradley told the jury they might also bear in mind “sparing a thought for the defendant’s own family; the horror they must have felt when they watched the CCTV footage of him running around the perimeter of that park, carrying something under his arm – compelling them to call the police”.

13:44

'Attack of desolating wickedness'

The prosecutor said: “The petty theft, in the aftermath, stealing her handbag rather than phoning for an ambulance.

“It speaks volumes about the mind-set and selfishness, when you look at that behaviour and the consequences, his motive and what he did.

“He has put forward no answer, no evidence.

“This dangerous young man, for his own selfish reasons, carried out an attack of desolating wickedness.

“His intention was to kill her.

“His threadbare case has fallen apart before your eyes.”

Mr Aspden has now concluded his closing speech, in which he reminded the jury of the key points of the Crown’s case against the defendant.

The defence barrister will now give his closing speech, in which he will remind jurors of the key points of the case for the defendant.

He will be followed by the judge, who will sum up the case, before handing it over to the jurors for deliberation.

13:35

'He showed her no mercy'

Mr Aspden asked the jury to consider the defendant “treated her at the time of the attack”.

He added: “She was screaming in terror and pain.

“He didn’t stop.

“He showed her no mercy.

“He was ruthless in what he did.

“He ignored her – look at how he left her.

“You have the photographs.

“He left her, at the very best from his perspective, believing she was very, very seriously injured, if not dying.

“Did he do anything to summon assistance, even anonymously?

“He left her in the woods to die.

“She lay there for the best part of an hour, exposed, injured and abandoned.”

13:26

'Within a hair's breadth of dying'

Regarding the woman’s injuries, the prosecutor said: “Had he wanted to merely incapacitate and subdue her for sexual purposes, he could have done that.

“He could have threatened her, he could have taken hold of her, he could have slapped her and he could have taken a knife to put to her throat.

“What he did went far, far, far beyond what was required to accomplish his sexual objective.

“You’ve seen it here, you’ve seen the imagery, you’ve seen the photographs now of what he did.

“That’s just one of the injuries, the most serious one.

“She was covered in injuries from head to foot.

“The level of force was sufficient to put her in a life-threatening condition.

“She was in a medically induced coma.

“She came within a hair’s breadth of dying at his hands.

“It was to silence her so she wouldn’t tell anyone about what happened.

“Her life had to be sacrificed…”

13:18

'Deceitful, manipulative young man'

The prosecutor said the defendant lied when he told his family that drug dealers he went to buy cannabis from at the park were responsible for assaulting a woman. The jury has been told the defendant claimed he heard her screams, went to see what was happening and ended up being threatened at knifepoint himself.

The prosecutor said: “What did he tell the police?

“He didn’t say he didn’t intent to kill her.

“He denied he was the attacker – untrue.

“He then exercised his right of silence.

“The conclusion, we suggest, as far as what he’s said and not said, is staring us in the face.

“He hasn’t provided evidence because he is sadly, as we know, he’s a deceitful and manipulative young man who is prepared to lie to even his own family to evade responsibility for his actions and to minimise the seriousness of his involvement.”

13:08

'Told multiple lies'

The prosecutor said: “It’s not a situation that got out of hand.

“It had been contemplated from start to finish.

“How to you judge a person’s intent?

“You can’t take the top of their head off and examine the contents of their mind.

“It’s necessary to draw common sense conclusions about what they did and didn’t do.

“What they said and did.”

Mr Aspden said that after the defendant’s family recognised him from the CCTV footage in the police appeal for information, he told multiple lies.

He added: “When his step-mother came down and found him sleeping on the sofa (the following morning), he was behaving perfectly normally.

“He told her he returned home at 10.30pm the previous evening – untrue.

“He ‘seemed himself’.

“An act?

“If it wasn’t an act, then it’s even more disturbing.”

12:45

'Accused intended to kill'

The prosecutor told the jury: “He has a fixation with violent rape.

“You have seen the internet searches; it’s a disturbing fixation manifested in his interest to look at warped pornography and violent assault of helpless young women.

“An attack of this type had been festering in the back of his mind in the days and weeks leading up to the commission of his actions.

“He was seen running into the park carrying something heavy under his arm.

“He went to attack that woman armed with that weapon.

“It wasn’t picked up at the scene, it was taken there with intent to inflict serious injury to her, in order to kill her.

“Why else choose a weapon of that sort?”

12:37

'Looking for someone to attack'

Mr Aspden said the defendant had been for a drink with his uncle on the evening of July 3.

His uncle went to get a kebab and then later saw his nephew in the Clarendon Park area, when he said he was going to buy some cannabis, shortly after 10.30pm.

The attack upon the woman was at about 11.30pm.

Mr Aspden said there was “no good reason” why he should tell his step-mother the next day, as the jury has previously been told, that he had returned home from a night out at 10.30pm.

Mr Aspden said: “Why was he in that area (near Victoria Park) for the best part of an hour after his uncle left him?

“We submit he was there loitering, he was looking for someone to attack.”

12:24

'Teen researched violent rape attacks'

WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 6

A jury in the Victoria Park attempted murder trial has been told the accused 17-year-old had been researching violent rape attacks on helpless young women in the days and weeks before he re-enacted the crime.

The teenager has admitted intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm and twice raping a lone woman, who was crossing the park, in Leicester, on the night of July 3.

She was dragged into bushes and left with life threatening head injuries from allegedly being struck at least twice, with a paving slab.

The defendant, who chose not to give evidence in his defence at Leicester Crown Court today, denies attempting to murder the woman, who is in her 20’s.

The jury has been shown pictures of her, after she was found at the scene, and also in hospital where she was in a medically-induced coma for two weeks.

The prosecutor, Gordon Aspden, is now making his closing speech to the jury.

14:18

'Struck at least twice'

Mr Aspden said: “She was struck at least twice to the head with blunt force trauma, with an object that may have been a paving slab?”

The pathologist agreed.

The pathologist’s evidence has now concluded.

The court is now adjourning.

14:17

Paving stone or slab 'could have been used'

The prosecutor says: “You were asked to consider the possibility of a paving stone or slab being used, what’s your opinion?”

Professor Rutty says: “Such an object could have been used.”

The prosecutor asks: “If such an object was used, what would you expect?”

The pathologist says: “I would expect it to have hair, tissue and a degree of blood on the part that penetrated the scalp.”

14:03

Blunt force trauma

Mr Aspden says: “There is an injury to the forehead on the left side.”

Professor Rutty says: “I’ve described it as being on the left hand side of the face and forehead.”

Mr Aspden asks if both head injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma.

The professor agreed and said he would expect the implement or object used would also correspond with the main fracture.

13:44KEY EVENT

'Are they life threatening injuries?'

The prosecutor asks: “Are they life threatening injuries?”

The pathologist says: “Yes, sir.”

The prosecutor asks: “Life changing injuries?”

“Yes, sir,” he answers.

13:38

'Severe end of force was used'

Mr Aspden asks what level of force would have been required.

The pathologist says: “In blunt force trauma, it has been sufficient force to cause a substantive fracture all around the skull.

“Severe end of force was used.”

13:27

Object that caused injury was 'rectangular'

The jurors are looking at CT scans showing an image inside the skull, from the top.

Mr Aspden says: “We’re looking down though the top of the skull?”

Professor Rutty responds: “Yes, the fracture is traversing from the right hand side across the bottom of the skull and emerging from the left hand side.”

He estimates the width of the object that could have caused the injury, described as a C-shaped fracture, was approximately three centimetres wide.

It was “rectangular” in shape.

A small model of a skull is being used to explain the location and a replica of the main fracture has been shown in court.

13:16

Damage to the skull

The pathologist says: “Pointing to the right side of my scalp, this is the depressed area of fracture to the bone that has been pushed inwards.

“Pushed towards but not entirely into the skull.

“It has developed all the way along the bottom of the skull and came up on the other side.”

Mr Aspden says: “The right side of the fracture has damaged the skull all the way around the right side and under the base of the skull and re-emerged on the left side?”

Professor Rutty replied: “Yes.”

13:15

Opinion on injuries

TUESDAY DECEMBER 5

Day two of the trial is continuing with evidence from consultant Home Office pathologist, Professor Guy Rutty, who is giving evidence about the nature of the woman’s injuries.

Prosecutor, Gordon Aspden, says: “You weren’t involved in the treatment or aftercare, but you were asked by the police to give an opinion concerning certain injuries she sustained?”

Professor Rutty answers: “That’s correct.”

He said that he had been given photographs of the alleged victim’s injuries and CT scans of her skull.